They seemed to think that being polite and civil to others was an indication that these poor socially stunted children were deprived. What amazed me about the article is that so much in it was still positive. I think the bias was obvious, and yet for all of their (presumed) digging, the best they could come up with was "one might conclude that"...(something negative), or "still others are convinced that"...(another pathetic innuendo) or the ever popular "Dr. (obscure nobody) of (liberal cesspool) University, expressed grave misgivings…"
My favorite was their economic "slam". My recollection is that, according to the article, ~1/3rd of public school funding is federal, ~1/3rd state, and 1/3rd local. If a student is removed and the per-capita funding from the feds and state go away there is still ~1/3rd remaining to be used. I recognize that some expenses are not per-capita based…it doesn’t cost less to heat the building, for example, with one less student. But no one will convince me that the schools are worse off financially without the hard numbers. The best they could come up with is that it would be harder to get approval to raise property taxes. How pathetic. Also, if 2/3rds are remaining with Government, can't that funding be applied to something else that is "worthwhile"? (my apologies for the implied oxymoron)
The reality is that the fight against home schooling is about the education system maintaining its power to advance a social agenda. They press for power in government by way of union dues/ pacs. And power over the minds of our children through ineffective (DARE! - to soak up time and money in a program that is useless at best!) and sometimes vile ("sex" ed - please note: bananas are not condom holders) social indoctrination and through watered down academics (whole language, ebonics, etc.).
And now, let me tell you what I REALLY THINK….